Thomas Schelling, in his book Arms and Influence, describes the way the threat of war can be used in negotiation, to coerce another country to abide by the demands of another. In this case, the United States and the European Union, among others, have been trying to negotiate, even coerce, Iran into giving up its nuclear arms program. For the most part, Iran has not been willing to negotiate much. In fact, Iran is often described as being defiant against the world. Will this defiance cause a war to be started with Iran? The chances are good that a war could take place, but the chances are just as good that political leaders will find another way to deal with Iran’s relations with the world, especially after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the book Arms and Influence by Thomas Schelling, he points out that when diplomacy and bargaining are taking place, there has to be a common interest, even if the common interest is to avoid mutual damage. In order for bargaining to work, there must be “An awareness of the need to make the other party prefer an outcome acceptable to oneself” (Schelling 1). In much of the language reported from Iran, however, it does not appear that Iran is willing to negotiate, maybe because it does not feel that damage will be inflicted by not bargaining. Iran may be correct. Unless Iran openly inflicts violence on another country, it may be able to develop its nuclear arms and continue to make threats in spite of what other countries have tried to force Iran to do. This opinion seems surprising considering that Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein taken down, even though the nuclear threat from Iraq was not as clear as the nuclear threat coming from Iran. But as argued by Ivo Daalder (2006), the cont... ... middle of paper ... ...ut like Thomas Schelling says, it is unlikely that the country would do something that would guarantee its total destruction (such as using a nuclear weapon). On the other hand, that does not mean it will not cause harm to others. Works Cited Daalder, Ivo. "Is War With Iran Inevitable?" Brookings Institute, April 21, 2006. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0421iran_daalder.aspx (accessed September 24, 2011). Eckman, Jim . "Iran v. Saudi Arabia." Issues in Perspective, April 30, 2011. http://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/04/30-2/ (accessed September 24, 2011). Pollack, Ken & Takeyh, Roon. "Doubling Down on Iran." Washington Quarterly. 34. no. 4 (Fall 2011). http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2011/09_iran_pollack_takeyh/09_iran_pollack_takeyh.pdf (accessed September 24, 2011). Schelling. T. Arms and Influence. Yale University. 1966.
Dodds, Joana and Ben Wilson. "THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR: UNATTAINABLE OBJECTIVES1." Middle East Review of International Affairs (Online) 13, no. 2 (06, 2009): 72-94. http://search.proquest.com/docview/220899524?accountid=8289.
Symonds, Peter. "World Socialist Web Site ." US think tank report weighs up "grim future' of nuclear war (2013).
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
Even today, Iran has largely maintained its anti-American stance, and conflict between the two nations is tangible. The United States, still wary of Iran’s hate for all western influence, keeps sanctions on Iran, in an attempt to restrict Iran's nuclear power. To many Americans, Iran is considered part of the Axis of Evil, a nation of terrorists and radical Muslims. In Iran, there still exist many ‘death to America’ slogans. With Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, however, the United States and Iran have started restoring diplomatic relations. We can only hope that Iran and the US will find enough common ground to break the shackles of
Griffith, William E. “The Revial of Islamic Fundamentalism: the Case of Iran.” International Security. Volume 4, Issue 1, 1979, 132-138.
Roberts, M. R. (2011, September 08). "A broad terrorism plan". American City & County, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.
Maynes, Charles. "The Middle East in the Twenty-First Century." Middle East Journal 52.1 (1998): 9-16. JSTOR. Web. 6 June 2011.
The Geneva talks are a continuation of an attempt two weeks ago to clinch a deal with Iran that would put a brake on its nuclear program in return for an easing of economic sanctions. American officials say those terms are intended only as a first step to a comprehensive agreement that would remove the risk of Iran’s developing a nuclear weapon.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a country of volatile politics in the Middle East, participating in numerous minor disputes and full out wars during its history. Its participation in a bloody and indecisive war with Iraq, its sponsorship of terrorist groups such as the Hezbollah and Hamas (Bruno 2011), and its controversial election have all made international bodies raise their eyebrows in the past. However, it is Iran’s nuclear ambitions that truly captured the attention of all nations in the recent months.
Iran has a nuclear program that is very devious to say the least, and therefore is a huge risk to everyone. Experts say that their nuclear program has expanded into a mature operation and has the capability to produce nuclear warheads in less than a year (Jahn).
The loss of motivation to keep fighting was the main reason Iran accepted the United Nations Security Resolution 598 in 1988 that ended the war between Iran and Iraq. The combination of allegations of terrorism from countries, the lack of support from other nations, and the death toll of the Iranian people were the factors that support Iran’s loss of motivation to keep fighting in the
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
In the face of uncertain developments in the Iranian nuclear program, there are two important aspects to be taken into consideration by the U.S. government. Firstly, there is substantial evidence that the Islamic Republic is on the verge of achieving break-out capability for creating a nuclear device. It is estimated that such a development could happen within the next six months. In the meantime, the election of a new, moderate President of the Islamic Republic H.E. Hassan Rouhani, whose tone and articulated policies (which, undoubtedly, have been endorsed by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), may create a historic window of opportunity for reaching an agreement on their nuclear program. Additionally, international sanctions imposed by the United Nations and implemented by the trading partners of Iran may also prove to be an effective tool for dealing with the Iranian nuclear crisis.
Stouten, John. J. (2005) the likelihood of a nuclear attack is greater than before. In James